Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

A nice new earner for cash strapped councils?

Recommended Posts

More here; https://www.property118.com/april-6th-landlords-fined-30000-without-court-prosecution/96203/

I thought this bit was interesting;

Quote

Two Changes under the Housing and Planning act will come into force from April 6th with the widening of Rent Repayment Orders and new Fixed Penalty notices.k3hOi7Y89M.jpg

The concern is landlords could be fined £30,000 without a court prosecution, be made to repay rent without a prosecution, but still have to wait to evict while tenants may be in arrears or causing damage to the property.

Rent Repayment orders:

These can now be applied for under a more streamlined process for the following reasons

  • Failure to apply for a HMO licence
  • Breach of a local authority licence condition
  • Use of unlawful force to evict a tenant
  • Noncompliance of HMO management regulation
  • Breach of an HHSRS enforcement notice

Rent Repayment Orders are produced by the First Tier Tribunal on the application of a local authority or tenant against a landlord.

The Tribunal must have clear evidence that a landlord that one of the above conditions has occurred, but a landlord does not have to be prosecuted through the courts. Therefore, a local authority or tenant can request a Rent Repayment Order even though a landlord has not been prosecuted for any offence.

Fixed Penalties:

This gives Local authorities the power to apply fines of up to £30,000 for any offence under the Housing Act 2004 or one of the above without the need to prosecute.

A Landlord could be fined up to £30,000 for each offence if there are multiple, but they cannot all be for the maximum amount.

Landlords will have 28 days to appeal the fixed penalty which the Local authority will have to consider and then issue a final decision notice. Following this final decision notice landlords will then have a further 28 days to appeal to the first tier tribunal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The blacklist, however, will only be accessible to local and central government – not to members of the public using letting agents, and not to employers or recruitment companies in the sector."

So pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can understand the popularity here of landlord bashing especially with some suggestion that they are bad landlords.

However is government beurocrats seizing significant assets without full access to the whole court hierarchy, a principle we really want to support?

Be aware that the bad-landlord-tv-porn always shows flats and guardens full of the tenants rotting rubbish whilst the voiceover says look what a slum dwelling the landlord provides. Is that grounds for 30k fines for LL in these new rules?
Council beaurocrats are hardly more intelligent that that.

Sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me. How long before they're taking your OO house because you got your recycling wrong?
Gatso-recycling-fines can't be far off. Not recycling is already an offence. Paranoia or realism?

On the other hand, removing the strong UK reputation for the rights of property owners to legal process will absolutely succeed in scaring johnny foreigner off so it could cause HPC from the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ebull said:

Can understand the popularity here of landlord bashing especially with some suggestion that they are bad landlords.

However is government beurocrats seizing significant assets without full access to the whole court hierarchy, a principle we really want to support?

Be aware that the bad-landlord-tv-porn always shows flats and guardens full of the tenants rotting rubbish whilst the voiceover says look what a slum dwelling the landlord provides. Is that grounds for 30k fines for LL in these new rules?
Council beaurocrats are hardly more intelligent that that.

Sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me. How long before they're taking your OO house because you got your recycling wrong?
Gatso-recycling-fines can't be far off. Not recycling is already an offence. Paranoia or realism?

On the other hand, removing the strong UK reputation for the rights of property owners to legal process will absolutely succeed in scaring johnny foreigner off so it could cause HPC from the top.

I think it is more a case that councils need money and landlords are unpopular and normally have more money than anyone else, so it is a no brainer way of increasing funds at a time when social care costs are rocketing and councils can only put their council tax up by so much. We'll see how it plays out in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2017 at 9:48 AM, ebull said:

Can understand the popularity here of landlord bashing especially with some suggestion that they are bad landlords.

However is government beurocrats seizing significant assets without full access to the whole court hierarchy, a principle we really want to support?

Be aware that the bad-landlord-tv-porn always shows flats and guardens full of the tenants rotting rubbish whilst the voiceover says look what a slum dwelling the landlord provides. Is that grounds for 30k fines for LL in these new rules?
Council beaurocrats are hardly more intelligent that that.

Sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me. How long before they're taking your OO house because you got your recycling wrong?
Gatso-recycling-fines can't be far off. Not recycling is already an offence. Paranoia or realism?

On the other hand, removing the strong UK reputation for the rights of property owners to legal process will absolutely succeed in scaring johnny foreigner off so it could cause HPC from the top.

 

I don't have an OO house.   We rent and are priced out, unless taking on jumbo mortgage or relocating.   

My elderly landlord has 5 houses, maybe 6, with £2m+ of housing wealth. 

It's all-good-and-nice to be principled upon principle to defend the extreme haves, but sometimes life will find a way to address imbalances, and to tap money from those who have.  

Rough on 'the haves' with loads of properties/houses?  Aww.   Welcome to reality.  Your fear tactic doesn't work when those on the have-nots have been cornered with not a lot left to lose.  "Is it really ethical?"   "If they do this, you could be next!"   Bring it on.

The rules can change.  See rent controls for an example which had many a landlord sell up cheap in the past.

Quote

 

Bland Unsight post, August 7, 2016:  I've been reading David Smith's book Something Will Turn Up. It's really a memoir of his career as a commentator on economic matters, as an economics correspondent at The Times, and finally as the economics editor.

What occurred to me was that certain economic structures which are considered inviolable are quickly broken and forgotten.

 

 

On 4/28/2015 at 0:11 PM, FreeTrader said:

George Speight: "Who bought the inter-war semi? The socio-economic characteristics of new house buyers in the 1930s".

University of Oxford: Discussion Papers in Economic and Social History, Number 38, December 2000.

.....And from the conclusion (BTL investors beware):

"But if one is interested in the spread of owner-occupation per se, it is necessary to consider not only the two million plus houses built in the interwar period for owner-occupation, but also the large number of houses – estimated to be in excess of one million – transferred out of the privately-rented sector by sale to owner-occupiers. In a large proportion of these cases, landlords sold their properties in response to the low returns imposed on them by the rent restriction legislation. (Conversely, they were concentrated in the 1920s.) In many cases they could only realise low prices for their properties, and they often sold to the sitting tenants."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Venger said:
On 22/03/2017 at 9:48 AM, ebull said:

However is government beurocrats seizing significant assets without full access to the whole court hierarchy, a principle we really want to support?

Be aware that the bad-landlord-tv-porn always shows flats and guardens full of the tenants rotting rubbish whilst the voiceover says look what a slum dwelling the landlord provides. Is that grounds for 30k fines for LL in these new rules?
Council beaurocrats are hardly more intelligent that that.

Sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me. How long before they're taking your OO house because you got your recycling wrong?
Gatso-recycling-fines can't be far off. Not recycling is already an offence. Paranoia or realism?

On the other hand, removing the strong UK reputation for the rights of property owners to legal process will absolutely succeed in scaring johnny foreigner off so it could cause HPC from the top.

 

I don't have an OO house.   We rent and are priced out, unless taking on jumbo mortgage or relocating.   

My elderly landlord has 5 houses, maybe 6, with £2m+ of housing wealth. 

It's all-good-and-nice to be principled upon principle to defend the extreme haves, but sometimes life will find a way to address imbalances, and to tap money from those who have.  

Rough on 'the haves' with loads of properties/houses?  Aww.   Welcome to reality.  Your fear tactic doesn't work when those on the have-nots have been cornered with not a lot left to lose.  "Is it really ethical?"   "If they do this, you could be next!"   Bring it on.

The rules can change.  See rent controls for an example which had many a landlord sell up cheap in the past.

 

 

The comment was not whether it's ethical but whether it's desirable for everyone that the legal system which [in theory] is available to all is bypassed.

If you have council power to seize stuff, they won't mind seizing your deposit-savings-gold-whatever and won't care that you see yourself as a have-not. They'll be along for yours after they've got the juicier low hanging fruit.

Would you rather have the same protection of laws that the "extreme haves" get or do you think a "different" system for the have nots will work out well for you?

Divide and rule. Will we let them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Venger said:

 

I don't have an OO house.   We rent and are priced out, unless taking on jumbo mortgage or relocating.   

My elderly landlord has 5 houses, maybe 6, with £2m+ of housing wealth. 

It's all-good-and-nice to be principled upon principle to defend the extreme haves, but sometimes life will find a way to address imbalances, and to tap money from those who have.  

Rough on 'the haves' with loads of properties/houses?  Aww.   Welcome to reality.  Your fear tactic doesn't work when those on the have-nots have been cornered with not a lot left to lose.  "Is it really ethical?"   "If they do this, you could be next!"   Bring it on.

The rules can change.  See rent controls for an example which had many a landlord sell up cheap in the past.

The way your landlady should be tapped is by taxing the CG whenever she wants to remortgage or even yearly.  The biggest unfairness in the tax system around housing is that the portfolio builders were allowed to use the CGT-portion of remortgaged-house-1 to buy house-2 with a lower LTV. That was government money and when they released house-1 equity, they effectively borrow the CGT-portion for free. Taxing the CG at remortgage time would fix this problem going forward but is still not implemented, s24 was not a bad attempt at reversing some of the effect from the past.

I used to live in a country where rent control existed. First a 50m2 house next to hyde park would be allocated the same rent as one in the roughest back-to-back-terraced street in Liverpool. Then people would move heaven and earth to pass the hyde park pad around amonst freinds or just take key money or sublet or even keep it empty whilst the ineffective local authorities watched 20-30% of the rent-controlled-housing-stock remain unavailable. This also happens in London now with council flats, how many god knows but TV programs have no problem finding some when they do their fly-on-the-wall housing officer shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ebull said:

The comment was not whether it's ethical but whether it's desirable for everyone that the legal system which [in theory] is available to all is bypassed.

If you have council power to seize stuff, they won't mind seizing your deposit-savings-gold-whatever and won't care that you see yourself as a have-not. They'll be along for yours after they've got the juicier low hanging fruit.

Would you rather have the same protection of laws that the "extreme haves" get or do you think a "different" system for the have nots will work out well for you?

Divide and rule. Will we let them?

The examples quoted above were unlawful force, breach or noncompliance with regulations. It doesn't seem like this would be applied on a whim.

I don't think there is a slippery slope to councils fining people because they haven't got a ISA license or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways perhaps this is letting the landlord off lightly. Don't worry about a prosecution (and all that implies) and an unlimited fine, just bung us some cash and we will make it go away....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   86 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.